Unfaired recumbent hour record vs. upright



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:

a pound or two here or there isn't going to be that
> big of a deal.

I'm not talking about one or two lbs. Buck. There is a significant difference between a 35+ lb bent
and a 20 lb. bent when climbing and accelerating in races. For touring, commuting or recreational
riding weight does not matter.

The ZIPP 3000 TT bike I used in my DF racing days was more expensive in comparison than my current
carbon lowracer. There was no point keeping the DF bikes as there are more efficient bikes available
on the recumbent platform for MY intended use.

Notice how I specifically state "MY" intended use and not yours.

Regards, AA
 
"AA" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
>
> a pound or two here or there isn't going to be that
> > big of a deal.
>
> I'm not talking about one or two lbs. Buck. There is a significant difference between a 35+ lb
> bent and a 20 lb. bent when climbing and accelerating in races. For touring, commuting or
> recreational riding weight does not matter.

Glad to see we agree.

> The ZIPP 3000 TT bike I used in my DF racing days was more expensive in comparison than my current
> carbon lowracer. There was no point keeping the DF bikes as there are more efficient bikes
> available on the recumbent platform for MY intended use.

I expected the lowracer to be more expensive, not less, so I admit a considerable amount
of surprise.

But I am really interested in the other questions I asked. Can you take a stab at the position
questions?

Thanks, Buck
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:

> odynamics, etc. I'm sure your 'bent cost quite a bit more than the average. It also isn't the
> most useable platform (unless you convert that tailbox into a big trunk). You have made
> sacrifices to gain the ultimate in high-speed performance. How much did that cost you in $ per
> mph gain, or $ per lb?

Buck, My bike is very useable to me and unlike you or other riders in this thread this is the only
bike that I own and need at this point in time. I do not need a stable of bikes like other riders.
All the bikes I have rode previously have been sold. My lowracer is used for a specific purpose
which is not recreational or commuting.

As for sacrifices for speed I have no idea what you are referring to or do I care to know. I would
rather do a 130 mile training ride on this bike than on a road or time trial DF frame.

I do not understand why cost is an issue with you. After all this is a fun hobby and if I prefer to
spend my money on something I like doing I see it as no problem.

Regards, AA
 
"AA" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Buck, My bike is very useable to me and unlike you or other riders in this thread this is the only
> bike that I own and need at this point in time. I do not need a stable of bikes like other riders.
> All the bikes I have rode previously have been sold. My lowracer is used for a specific purpose
> which is not recreational or commuting.

Alright, alright, no need to get touchy around here. No one is giving you a hard time for the bike
you choose to ride. I am just trying to tease out all the benefits and sacrifices for the recumbent
platform. There are plenty of people around with one bike. Many of those sit in a garage. A few have
only one race bike. It all depends on what your goals are. A lot of the people in this group use
their bikes for commuting, touring, recreation, and even racing. That's why we have an interest in
discussing all of the issues, not just one aspect of cycling. Any time someone comes on here and
starts waxing eloquent about the latest, greatest unobtanium, we will always read what they have to
write with a great amount of skepticism. What may make a the racer's bike the slightest bit lighter
often makes no difference to the non-racer and can be downright dangerous (anyone remember the
stupid-light handlebars for mountain bikes a few years back?).

> As for sacrifices for speed I have no idea what you are referring to or do I care to know. I would
> rather do a 130 mile training ride on this bike than on a road or time trial DF frame.

The sacrifices you have made are the same ones many racers make - an expensive bike that is not
really useable for anything but racing or training for racing.

> I do not understand why cost is an issue with you. After all this is a fun hobby and if I prefer
> to spend my money on something I like doing I see it as no problem.

Again, no one is giving you a hard time for the bike you chose nor the money you spent on it. The
bikes of the participants in this group range from the junkyard rescues to the latest racing
platform and while some of us have less than a couple thousand invested so far, many have many, many
times that invested in their equipment. Bringing it back to the real world, the average retail price
of a bike a few years ago was $600 (bicycleretailer.com), but from what I have seen, the average
price of a 'bent is higher. This is why price matters. Recumbent manufacturers need to take a real
look at the price if they want to reach the masses.

Getting this back on track, I asked a few questions about rider position and angles. Want to take a
stab at those?

Thanks, Buck
 
Bluto <[email protected]> wrote:
: Thomas Schott at that race, with his huge tail fairing:
: http://www.speedbikebgl.de/pix/bendk02us03.jpg

--snip--

: That very site has pictures of the guys you named riding *in that very event* with large fairings,
: or even two-up! Is that what you call a fair comparison?

Maybe that is the problem: unfaired bents are boring! If you can get a few nice km/h of boost from a
fairly simple tail fairing, why ride unfaired? Why suffer needlessly? Join the faired crew and rule
the galaxy as father and son...

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/ varis at no spam please iki fi
 
Buck wrote:
> ... Recumbent manufacturers need to take a real look at the price if they want to reach
> the masses.

There are some legitimate reasons that recumbents will be more expensive than uprights of similar
frame material, level of components and overall quality.

The are many standard components made for uprights that are custom items for recumbents. A partial
list includes stem and handlebars (substitute steering riser or linkage for recumbents), saddles
(substitute seat for recumbents), wheels (most recumbents use something beside dual ISO 622-mm
wheels) components groups (none really suitable for most recumbents), and forks (except for the few
recumbents with ISO 559-mm, ISO 571-mm, and ISO 622-mm front wheels [1]).

Most recumbents will typically use the equivalent of three upright chains and will also have chain
idlers or chain tubes.

Standardized tubing for upright frames is available, while most (or all?) recumbents use
non-standard (length and diameter) size tubing.

Economies of scale are generally also in favor of upright manufacturers compared to recumbent
manufactures, especially those that build entry-level "bike store quality" bikes.

[1] 26" MTB size, 650C, and 700C respectively for traditionalists who prefer obsolete nomenclature.

Tom Sherman - Various HPV's Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:

> The sacrifices you have made are the same ones many racers make - an expensive bike that is not
> really useable for anything but racing or training for racing.

Ride, train and race is all I am interested in doing with biking at this point in life so I see my
time and effort spent as enjoyment and NOT a sacrifice. This is how I prefer to spend my free time.

You keep telling me my bike is not really useable and this is one of the resons I doubt I will
continue discussing bents with you Buck. That is a VERY ignorant comment on your behalf after I have
tried to be factual and honest with you Buck. I ride about 10,000 mi. per year on my bike and that
is VERY rideable. On all types of roads and grades.

You have your opinion that recumbents are not useable for anythig other than racing which is a
biased opinion and rediculous with NO facts to back your POV up BUCK.

Getting this back on track, I asked a few questions about rider position and angles. Want to take a
stab at those?

I have no time to get measured at a performance lab or to do tests in a wind tunnel or ride
different bikes for comparison. I know what works well for my intended goal and am not interested in
comparing angles to other platforms. There is only is much time in a given day.

Regards, AA
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

: From the pictures I have seen of Boardman on his record setting "Superman" bike, he is looking
: almost straight down at the track surface. This hardly appears a safe way to ride in traffic, or
: even with other bicycles. These "Superman" uprights appear to be significantly more limited in
: utility than the highest performance recumbent lowracers such as the Razz-Fazz, M5 Carbon
: Lowracer, and Birk Comet.

People are building lowracers that are intended for merely track riding. Not as practical, but AFAIK
they are faster than the ones you mentioned.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/ varis at no spam please iki fi
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Antti Salonen <[email protected]> wrote:
> : UCI-standardised bikes is 49.44 kilometres, but in the "superman position" Boardman rode 56.38
> : kilometres.
>
> Any pictures?

Boardman during his 1996 hour record run on the "superman position" bike":

< http://www.radsport-news.com/images/boardman1996.jpg > <
http://www.cyclingphotography.co.uk/images/boardman-chris002.jpg > <
http://www.fatnick.com/hour38.jpg > < http://www.lunt.demon.co.uk/hourrec.jpg >

Boardman during his 2000 hour record run on the UCI legal bike:

< http://home.conceptsfa.nl/~rivala/Boardman.jpg > < http://www.bicyclesusa.com/boardm~1.jpg >

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
 
Tom Sherman wrote:

> Boardman during his 1996 hour record run on the "superman position" bike":

http://www.lunt.demon.co.uk/hourrec.jpg

What are those doo-hickies sticking out of the fork crown?

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you
underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening
 
"AA" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
>
> > The sacrifices you have made are the same ones many racers make - an expensive bike that is not
> > really useable for anything but racing or training for racing.
>
> Ride, train and race is all I am interested in doing with biking at this point in life so I see
> my time and effort spent as enjoyment and NOT a sacrifice. This is how I prefer to spend my
> free time.

The sacrifices of which I speak are not in time or quality of life, they are the ones that make the
bike a specialist's bike, not a generalist's bike. You know, carrying a load, ability to deal with
urban obstacles, etc. It's like the purchase of an auto - if you have a couple of kids to haul
around, you aren't going to buy a Porsche 911. In my eyes, you are riding around on the cycling
equivalent of a Porsche. Nothing wrong with that!

> You keep telling me my bike is not really useable and this is one of the resons I doubt I will
> continue discussing bents with you Buck. That is a VERY ignorant comment on your behalf after I
> have tried to be factual and honest with you Buck. I ride about 10,000 mi. per year on my bike and
> that is VERY rideable. On all types of roads and grades.

I don't know why you have become so sensitive. Your bike is a purpose-built machine. Again, there
is nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't get my hackles up if people told me that my road bike was
not as versatile as a mountain bike. They're right! I can't take it off-road comfortably. I can't
mount a set of racks on it. I can't mount a set of large tires on it to make it more comfortable.
It is a purpose-built machine. It was made to go fast over smooth roads, much like your carbon
fiber recumbent. It is, however, an entry-level bike. I guess it would be the equivalent of a
Mustang or Camaro - it doesn't have the carbon fiber frame or high-end components found on the
top-end racing bikes. And guess what? There is nothing wrong with that! I ride it for fast weekend
rides, for exercise when the family stays at home, and on supported weekend tours. My most
versatile bike is a mountain bike that has a rack for hauling stuff, a hitch for the trailer,
fenders for staying dry, two sets of wheels for road or dirt, a beat-up paint job for
undesirability, and an easy way to lock it up.

There is no difference in the rideability of any of these bikes, mine or yours. However, there is a
huge difference in versatility between all of them. That is part of what we are discussing around
here. So don't get all upset about it. I think you have an interesting viewpoint to contribute. You
have told us that you are interested in speed, so focus on that aspect of it and let's move forward
with the conversation.

> You have your opinion that recumbents are not useable for anythig other than racing which is a
> biased opinion and rediculous with NO facts to back your POV up BUCK.

I have not said that, so don't make assumptions. Recumbents have some obvious advantages
(aerodynamics, comfort) but I haven't seen that they are as versatile. I would like to have one for
going fast. I'd like to get one for my wife and for my father-in-law because both prefer the seating
position. It would be nice to see them getting some exercise. I won't be getting one for commuting
unless I happen to move to an area where I won't have so many obstacles to cross.

> Getting this back on track, I asked a few questions about rider position and angles. Want to take
> a stab at those?
>
> I have no time to get measured at a performance lab or to do tests in a wind tunnel or ride
> different bikes for comparison. I know what works well for my intended goal and am not interested
> in comparing angles to other platforms. There is only is much time in a given day.

I would think that this is part of what helps you go fast. I'm not suggesting you go down to the a
performance lab and run a bunch of tests. This is a question about the theories behind recumbent
design. Which is more important to unfaired recumbents, maximum power from the rider or
aerodynamics? If it were maximum power, then perhaps the position needs to be readjusted so the
rider angle is closer to 90°. Are the aerodynamics that much better in the prone position as we see
on some of the extreme lowracers? If power goes down as the rider angle approaches 180°, then what
do you think might be the best compromise between the rider angle and aerodynamics? Finally, do you
believe that the body position relative to earth has anything to do with it?

I would think these are questions you would be asking yourself in your quest to go faster. I'm
interested in your point of view as a person who is seeking the ultimate in performance.

-Buck
 
"AA" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snip>

> I have no time to get measured at a performance lab or to do tests in a wind tunnel or ride
> different bikes for comparison. I know what works well for my intended goal and am not interested
> in comparing angles to other platforms. There is only is much time in a given day.

I had another interesting thought that you might be able to verify during one of your training
rides. Holding all else equal, how much does weight really affect 'bents? Since I say it makes
little difference in the real world and you say that it makes a world of difference while racing,
perhaps you could add 10 lbs to your bike and see how it affects your times on your normal training
circuit. It certainly shouldn't affect your training regimen - the extra weight will help make you
stronger if it has any affect at all! I'm serious about this. Give it a shot and let us know how big
of a difference it makes. I would imagine it would be significant in the racing world (where seconds
count) but won't change your performance more than 5%. Could you give that one a try for us?

Thanks, Buck
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bluto wrote:
> > ... Anyway, I don't understand your point. My friend's implication was that the Hurricane was
> > difficult to ride to the extent of being unrideable by a beginner....
>
> Actually the same may be said of upright bikes. Find an adult who has never ridden a bicycle and
> put him or her on a standard road bike and see how well he/she does at first.

It's not like a 'bent uses different principles to stay up or turn corners than a regular bike. If
it's hard for someone who can already ride a bike, that's because the thing is squirrelly.

I build choppers and belong to a bicycle chopper club. A lot of our contraptions are completely
fubar, but they're only rarely as cantankerous to ride as a BikeE for instance, let alone a really
exotic feet-first racybike.

Choppers, like 'bents, do fine on open pavement that isn't too steep or rough. But you won't see
choppers or 'bents undertaking observed trials, bike polo, stunt riding or any other activity that
requires precise, affirmative maneuvering.

I've learned from riding choppers that you can become accustomed to the wildest of handling
characteristics if you give it some time. But there is a big difference between handling you can get
used to, and good handling.

I imagine that a sweet-riding 'bent may be possible to build. It also may be possible to build a
'bent that has a demonstrable speed advantage, unfaired, over a normal bike. I have never been
exposed to either of these things, though, and given my experiences to date I would probably have to
see one firsthand to believe it.

Chalo Colina
 
Bluto wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Bluto wrote:
> > > ... Anyway, I don't understand your point. My friend's implication was that the Hurricane was
> > > difficult to ride to the extent of being unrideable by a beginner....
> >
> > Actually the same may be said of upright bikes. Find an adult who has never ridden a bicycle and
> > put him or her on a standard road bike and see how well he/she does at first.
>
> It's not like a 'bent uses different principles to stay up or turn corners than a regular bike. If
> it's hard for someone who can already ride a bike, that's because the thing is squirrelly.

If one rides recumbents exclusively for a couple of years, upright bikes start to feel odd - the
amount of control force needed and the amount the rider has to move his/her body around is
disturbing.

While steering and balance are fundamentally the same on both recumbents and uprights, the approach
to riding each is quite different. An interesting phenomenon I have observed is that experienced
upright cyclist often have a harder time riding recumbents than those who have not ridden any
bicycles for a long time.

> I build choppers and belong to a bicycle chopper club. A lot of our contraptions are completely
> fubar, but they're only rarely as cantankerous to ride as a BikeE for instance, let alone a really
> exotic feet-first racybike.

In my opinion, a lot of lowracers handle better than a BikeE does. The BikeE has a heavy rear weight
distribution and lacks tiller in the steering.

> Choppers, like 'bents, do fine on open pavement that isn't too steep or rough. But you won't see
> choppers or 'bents undertaking observed trials, bike polo, stunt riding or any other activity that
> requires precise, affirmative maneuvering.

And how much time do most cyclists spend on the above activities? Any properly designed recumbent
can go any place a passenger automobile can, so they are perfectly suitable for vehicular cycling.

> I've learned from riding choppers that you can become accustomed to the wildest of handling
> characteristics if you give it some time. But there is a big difference between handling you can
> get used to, and good handling.

Upright bikes have poor handling for those who have not ridden them before. The same is true of
recumbents. Recumbent handling is only "difficult" because most people learned upright riding skills
as children and recumbent riding skills as adults.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
 
"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

<snip>

> Upright bikes have poor handling for those who have not ridden them before. The same is true of
> recumbents. Recumbent handling is only "difficult" because most people learned upright riding
> skills as children and recumbent riding skills as adults.

There are two things that make most recumbents "difficult" to ride - tiller steering and a lower
center of gravity. The lower center of gravity makes the bike "fall over" more quickly. This can be
quite disconcerting when you are used to lateral shifts taking a certain amount of time. I found
that on my first few rides, I tended to oversteer because my normal leaning unputs got me much
greater results than I was used to. The tiller steering only complicated matters. It reminded me of
being on a sailboat. The steering inputs were just *wrong*. I found that the easiest transition bike
was the BikeE simply because it doesn't have tiller steering. The local shop says that the BikeE is
the most popular for beginners for that very reason.

-Buck
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck wrote:
> >
> > ... Fabrizio is the one poseur around here who typifies the posters over in rec.bicycles.racing.
> > Take whatever he writes with a big grain of salt. Get a good laugh out of it and move on....
>
> Even though the bikes I have ridden the most over the last 4 years are recumbents and the last 2
> years are lowracers, I enjoy Fab's over-the-top posts. I do not take them seriously, however.
>
> I still suspect that Fab is a middle age recumbent rider pretending to be the ultimate roadie.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

Fabrizio's real identity (or a reasonable approximation thereof) is an open secret. Those of us who
know (it can be found online with the right effort) choose to indulge him, because we love him.

Also, at the next local road race where his team shows up, I'm gonna write "FORZA FABRIZIO! FORZA
STYLE! GIVE LANCE HELL!" in chalk on the course.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
AA wrote:
>
> Ride, train and race is all I am interested in doing with biking at this point in life so I see
> my time and effort spent as enjoyment and NOT a sacrifice. This is how I prefer to spend my
> free time.
>
> You keep telling me my bike is not really useable and this is one of the resons I doubt I will
> continue discussing bents with you Buck. That is a VERY ignorant comment on your behalf after I
> have tried to be factual and honest with you Buck. I ride about 10,000 mi. per year on my bike and
> that is VERY rideable. On all types of roads and grades.

AA (or FastBoy), can't you see the problem with your statements above?

You begin by saying that going fast is ALL you are interested in. Then you claim your bike is
VERY rideable.

I agree, your bike is very rideable for exactly the riding you do. Can you not see that your bike
would not be rideable for many of us? For one example: Sometimes I ride my bike through the local
forest preserve as a short cut to roads in that direction. (When one bridge was closed, I used that
route regularly.) It meant riding over gravel, some of it loose, then carrying my bike up the 12
extra-steep steps of a pedestrian suspension bridge, riding across the narrow swaying bridge (many
people walked theirs instead), remounting, doing more gravel, avoinding some tree roots on a short
single track, then hitting the road.

My road bike can handle that. Hanging it on my shoulder, I had one hand to grab the handrail for
those steep steps. I have no problem riding it on all but the loosest gravel - nor hopping the curbs
and speed bumps on my commute, etc.

Your bike is faster, surely. Mine is more versatile, just as surely. It's a matter of priorities.

Ride what you like, but be honest - don't pretend yours is vastly superior just because it excels in
_one_ aspect of cycling.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
Buck wrote:
>
> "Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Upright bikes have poor handling for those who have not ridden them before. The same is true of
> > recumbents. Recumbent handling is only "difficult" because most people learned upright riding
> > skills as children and recumbent riding skills as adults.
>
> There are two things that make most recumbents "difficult" to ride - tiller steering and a lower
> center of gravity. The lower center of gravity makes the bike "fall over" more quickly. This can
> be quite disconcerting when you are used to lateral shifts taking a certain amount of time. I
> found that on my first few rides, I tended to oversteer because my normal leaning unputs got me
> much greater results than I was used to. The tiller steering only complicated matters. It reminded
> me of being on a sailboat. The steering inputs were just *wrong*. I found that the easiest
> transition bike was the BikeE simply because it doesn't have tiller steering. The local shop says
> that the BikeE is the most popular for beginners for that very reason.
>
> -Buck

Buck,

The BikeE is indeed one of the easiest bikes for those new to recumbents to ride, but that does not
mean it is the best handling bike for an experienced recumbent rider.

I am happy you put 'difficult' in quotes, since low center of gravity
(CG) and tiller steering may indeed make a recumbent difficult for someone who is used to uprights
to ride. My bike obviously has both a low CG and tiller in the steering. [1] Yet, for me it is
the best handling bike I have ever ridden, and I have been able to ride it without problems,
even when I was suffering from a combination of heat stress and hypoatremia. It should be noted
that I have over 10,000 miles recumbent riding experience, over 6000 miles SWB recumbent riding
experience, and over 2000 miles lowracer riding experience, so I expect I have fully adjusted
to riding such recumbents.

[1] < ftp://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg >

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
 
Ed Gin & Shirleen Kajiwara <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Yes Bluto,
>
> You couldn't have stated it better, "limited experience" is the key. And have you considered your
> friend didn't want you to find out how fast lowracers really are?
>
> Utility is a non issue as track bikes by definition has a specific arena, where as the "race
> specific lowracers" are ridden thousands of miles on roads throughout the world.
>
> Ed - going on 60,000 miles in 4 years on my Festina lowracer - Gin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's examine Ed Gin's assertion (polite word for prevaricaton). The following figures are derived
directly from Ed's website where he lists his annual mileage as follows: 12,268 miles in 1999,
11,014 in 2000, and 14,857 in 2001. Whereas these are impressive figures, they pale in comparison to
Ed's stellar performance 2002 season. Follow along as I do the math. 12,268 + 11,014 + 14,857 =
38,139 miles. Ed claims to have ridden 60,00 miles in 4 years. That means Ed rode an astounding
21,861 miles in 2002 (60,000 - 38,139 = 21,861). Allow me to extend my congratulations to Ed for
single handedly undermining his own credability. This begs a question though. Just what can we
expect Ed Gin do for an encore in 2003? I've think I've got it ... fabricate a new all-time best
25,000 mile season! Stay tuned for more of the same bullhsit from the man who does it best, a legend
in his own mind and Peter Pan of the recumbent set ... "HEAD" Gin! - Jim McNamara
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Bluto wrote:
>
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > These "Superman" uprights appear to be significantly more limited in utility than the highest
> > > performance recumbent lowracers such as the Razz-Fazz, M5 Carbon Lowracer, and Birk Comet.
> >
> > That's a tall order. I'm certainly not one to claim that track funnybikes of any kind are
> > practical or easy rides, but my limited experience with lowracers suggests they may be no
> > better.
> >
> > One of my buddies in Austin bought a Dutch supine bike (a Challenge Hurricane), and had been
> > riding it for a few weeks when one day he came by my house. One of my housemates was predictably
> > freaking out over the bike and asked, "can I ride it?" My friend said, "No--
> >
> > "--and it's not because I won't let you, either!"
> >
> > Chalo Colina
 
Status
Not open for further replies.